Liza De Dobbeleer1, Olga Theou2, Ingo Beyer1, Gareth R Jones3, Jennifer M Jakobi3, Ivan Bautmans4. 1. Gerontology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium; Frailty in Ageing Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium; Geriatrics Department, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 3. School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Gerontology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium; Frailty in Ageing Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium; Geriatrics Department, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: ivan.bautmans@vub.be.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Muscle fatigability can be measured based on sustained handgrip performance, but different grip strength devices exist and their relationship to frailty remains unclear. We aimed to compare muscle fatigability obtained by Martin Vigorimeter and Jamar Dynamometer in older women across levels of frailty. METHOD: 53 community-dwelling women living in Greece (63-100 y), categorized according to tertiles on the Frailty Index score (FI) as: low-frail (FI < 0.19), intermediate-frail (FI 0.19-0.36), and high-frail (FI > 0.36). Fatigue resistance (FR, time for maximal grip strength to decrease to 50% during sustained contraction) was measured with both Martin Vigorimeter and Jamar Dynamometer, and grip work (GW, reflecting the area under the time-force curve) was calculated. RESULTS: FR, when measured with the Martin Vigorimeter, was approximately double in low-frail (44.3 ± 24.6 s) compared to high-frail participants (23.9 ± 12.7 s, p = 0.011), whereas FR was similar across frailty groups when measured with the Jamar Dynamometer. In logistic regression models, FR (OR = 0.94 [0.90-0.99]) and GW (OR = 0.90 [0.82-0.99]) were significantly related to high frailty when measured with the Martin Vigorimeter but not when measured with Jamar Dynamometer. There is a significantly proportional difference in FR measured with both devices (R2 = 0.364, p < 0.001), highlighting that the longer the participant could sustain the FR test, the higher the difference in FR measured with both devices. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the Martin Vigorimeter is a more appropriate handgrip device compared with the Jamar Dynamometer to assess muscle fatigability for older women across levels of frailty. When measured with the Martin Vigorimeter, high-frail participants show twice the level of fatigability compared to low-frail, whereas no difference was observed when using the Jamar Dynamometer. Older participants might stop the FR test prematurely when using the Jamar Dynamometer, before muscle fatigue is reached, indicating that the Jamar Dynamometer is unable to identify those participants with higher levels of muscle endurance. Martin Vigorimeter assessed muscle fatigability might be a good additional marker to include in frailty tools.
INTRODUCTION: Muscle fatigability can be measured based on sustained handgrip performance, but different grip strength devices exist and their relationship to frailty remains unclear. We aimed to compare muscle fatigability obtained by Martin Vigorimeter and Jamar Dynamometer in older women across levels of frailty. METHOD: 53 community-dwelling women living in Greece (63-100 y), categorized according to tertiles on the Frailty Index score (FI) as: low-frail (FI < 0.19), intermediate-frail (FI 0.19-0.36), and high-frail (FI > 0.36). Fatigue resistance (FR, time for maximal grip strength to decrease to 50% during sustained contraction) was measured with both Martin Vigorimeter and Jamar Dynamometer, and grip work (GW, reflecting the area under the time-force curve) was calculated. RESULTS: FR, when measured with the Martin Vigorimeter, was approximately double in low-frail (44.3 ± 24.6 s) compared to high-frail participants (23.9 ± 12.7 s, p = 0.011), whereas FR was similar across frailty groups when measured with the Jamar Dynamometer. In logistic regression models, FR (OR = 0.94 [0.90-0.99]) and GW (OR = 0.90 [0.82-0.99]) were significantly related to high frailty when measured with the Martin Vigorimeter but not when measured with Jamar Dynamometer. There is a significantly proportional difference in FR measured with both devices (R2 = 0.364, p < 0.001), highlighting that the longer the participant could sustain the FR test, the higher the difference in FR measured with both devices. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the Martin Vigorimeter is a more appropriate handgrip device compared with the Jamar Dynamometer to assess muscle fatigability for older women across levels of frailty. When measured with the Martin Vigorimeter, high-frail participants show twice the level of fatigability compared to low-frail, whereas no difference was observed when using the Jamar Dynamometer. Older participants might stop the FR test prematurely when using the Jamar Dynamometer, before muscle fatigue is reached, indicating that the Jamar Dynamometer is unable to identify those participants with higher levels of muscle endurance. Martin Vigorimeter assessed muscle fatigability might be a good additional marker to include in frailty tools.